Sean Reynolds' Feat Point system

[Li Shenron]

double

 

[Li Shenron]

Although FrankTrollman is not exactly delicate in his way of "expressing himself", I mostly agree with him (this time).

The general idea of trying to weight different feats is not wrong itself, and it is based on the common agreement (even quoted by the rulebooks themselves) that not all feats are equal. But the implementation of the idea is off and indeed completely based on opinions I don't necessarily agree with.

First of all, note that he starts by choosing benchmark feats and giving them 10 points. 10 is also the number of feat point given every time the PC would normally gain a feat. Then, after Sean's analysis, it comes out that almost all the feats are worth less than 10, possibly the average being around 8-9. Apart that this could have pointed out that maybe 10 feat points every time is too many, and it should be readjusted to 8 or 9. But in my opinion it just shows the author's real idea: PCs should get more feats. Then give them more feat!

I agree that as a house rule it could be done so that if you have chosen suboptimal feats for roleplay reasons, the DM maybe gives you 2 "poor" feats instead of one.

The rules for pricing feats are at least arguable, and in some cases I am completely disagreeing. For example:

1. Maybe. But I would like an explanation why Greater 2WF should cost 10 points when the extra attack granted is at -10 penalty. I think it depends too much on the feat.
2. True.
3. False. In my opinion, a +1 to AC is way better than a +1 to attacks. It is more difficult to get one. Furthermore, it is useful for everyone even the ones that never attacks.
4. False. A bonus +1 has exactly the same effect as reducing a penalty by 1. On the other hand, it is true that if you start with -4 getting +2 doesn't help at all, while if you start with +4 the +2 lets you go over the top, but this is either a matter of who takes the feat, or otherwise it applies to those feats that typically takes away the starting "-4". Those feat as a matter of fact turn a quite unusable tecnique into an usable one, giving you more choices if not exactly more power.
5. True.
6. True. It basically means that if you need to activate a feat, it either requires an action or at least it is not always active.
7. True.
8. True.
9. True.
10. True.

I want to point out anyway that except maybe #10 the other true are very obvious.

Finally, his statement that a feat can have very different value for different characters is the most important thing, but also in my opinion the reason why this system is not worth its complexity.
It is true that some feats are weak, and this system may help to see more common use for them which is a good thing. But how much? Besides metamagic feats which are awfully underpriced here, you will simply have about 15% more feats than normal, that is about 1 or perhaps 2 more feats in 20 levels... if you think some feats are worth 60% give them as half-feats as someone else suggested (although I may still disagree).

 

[Gez]

My own opinion is that it's too much of a hassle, but I'm already working on lots of major changes right now, so I'm not interested in that.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Interesting that Sean makes an IMO elementary mistake, in that he defines TWF as providing an additional capability (extra attacks), when in actual fact it comes into a far inferior category of "reduces penalty".

He seems to have forgotten that *anyone* can fight with two weapons if they are prepared to suck up the penalties for doing so. ITWF, GTWF and Rapid Shot all genuinely give an extra attack, but TWF merely reduces penalties and should thus by his definitions be priced more cheaply.

(having said that, arguably rogues could be charged far more for the various TWF feats because they stack so brilliantly with the rogue sneak attack ability. Much more of an issue in my mind than charging spontaneous casters extra for metamagic!)

Cheers

 

[Guilt Puppy]

1. Maybe. But I would like an explanation why Greater 2WF should cost 10 points when the extra attack granted is at -10 penalty. I think it depends too much on the feat.

I'm thinking what he was trying to get at was that certain feats (like TWF) synergized with others (allowing to use your WFoc twice as often, et cetera), although he phrased it in a really odd way. In any case, I'd say that's false, because of the commutative property of multiplication.

2. True.
3. False. In my opinion, a +1 to AC is way better than a +1 to attacks. It is more difficult to get one.
Furthermore, it is useful for everyone even the ones that never attacks.

Remember that balance should always be geared toward best-case scenario: The most efficient application of a certain feat or element. To a character who attacks more than anything else, that +1 to hit is better, since they will see it applied slightly more often (ie, when attacking the wizard who casts spells in response).

Of course, I'll have to contradict myself and say that I disagree with that particular example... While offense is better than defense (or rather, a feat where the player actively controls the frequency of its application is superior to one where the DM controls such), AC is better to have than BAB, simply by matter of scarcity... BAB is just easier to increase than AC is, so that +1 to hit, while of statistically equal value, is just more commonly available elsewhere. (This is why I almost always give a two-handed wielder a buckler these days )

4. False. A bonus +1 has exactly the same effect as reducing a penalty by 1. On the other hand, it is true that if you start with -4 getting +2 doesn't help at all, while if you start with +4 the +2 lets you go over the top, but this is either a matter of who takes the feat, or otherwise it applies to those feats that typically takes away the starting "-4". Those feat as a matter of fact turn a quite unusable tecnique into an usable one, giving you more choices if not exactly more power.

Again, I think it's a matter of frequency -- Precise Shot is not as good as a feat that gives you a +4 bonus when not firing into melee, for example. I think, however, he does underestimate the effectiveness of removing that kind of penalty -- it works as a sort of multiplier effect (if you're a good archer, then all of a sudden you're a good archer in twice as many situations; otherwise, you're just a better archer in one situation.)

The rest I agree with Sean and you on, although I don't understand the point of #6... If it requires an action, or comes with a penalty when active, or whatever, then that falls under #8... If there's no penalty and it's a free action to activate, then there's a problem with the feat itself: It should have been designed to be (effectively) on non-stop. No reason to create the extra bookkeeping for the players.

 

[Plane Sailing]

3. False. In my opinion, a +1 to AC is way better than a +1 to attacks. It is more difficult to get one. Furthermore, it is useful for everyone even the ones that never attacks.

Interestingly WotC would agree with you that +1 to AC is way better than +1 to attacks... hence the reason why the dodge feat gives you +1 to AC vs only one opponent, rather than +1 to AC generally.

A cursory look at the PHB feats reveal that (at least in 3.0) there was a clear design pattern:

Typically used once per combat? +4 bonus (improved init, combat casting, mobility??)

Typically comes into play less than once per round? +2 bonus (weapon specialisation - although you attack every round it only comes into effect in the rounds on which you hit)

Typically comes into play every round? +1 bonus (weapon focus)

A general +1 to AC could come into play lots of times if attacked by lots of foes, so lmiiting it to a bonus against a single foe sorta puts it into the same ballpark as weapon focus.

Cheers

 

[Piratecat]

This was designed by a monkey.

Frank, I'm getting tired of saying this. Stop insulting people and being rude. Sean posts on these boards, just like you do, and you can easily make your point without personal insults. I don't wish to see a reoccurrence of this; if you want to hang out here, then you're polite to other people. That's the bottom line.

If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me.

 

[FrankTrollman]

The elitist attitudes on this board are too much. Posting here is like being in a pillary while people throw rotten vegetables at me. Since posting here I have been called every kind of bad name, regardless of what kind of position I was taking - or even if I was not taking a position at all and simply quoting a piece of rules text.

And I would be OK with that - except that for some reason I am not supposed to throw them back. Worse, I am not even allowed to make fun of public figures. The "group" here is highly insular, and it is obvious that I am not a part of it - and that it is held to a radically different standard than I am.

This is supposedly a place to discuss D&D. Sometimes people make fun of Mongoose Publishing, or other 2rd party sources. Sometimes people make fun of campaign settings or specific books. And yet, I can't make fun of specific public figures who write those books?

That's nonsensical, and I won't pretend to support such a decision. The only thing I want out of moderation on a board is fairness - and I am just not seeing it here. I'm not going to post here anymore.

-Frank

 

[Oni]

I posted this idea here some time ago, but mostly was met with indifference or people didn't like it. I had used a 3 point system rather than 10 though, basically below avg, avg, and above avg. But long and the short of it was I thought breaking down feats into different power levels was a good idea then and I still think its a good idea now.

 

[Tywyll]

I posted this idea here some time ago, but mostly was met with indifference or people didn't like it. I had used a 3 point system rather than 10 though, basically below avg, avg, and above avg. But long and the short of it was I thought breaking down feats into different power levels was a good idea then and I still think its a good idea now.

Do you have a place where someone could look at that article now? And have you updated your system to 3.5?